RPGDot Network    
   

 
 
Ultima 9 - Ascension
Display full image
Pic of the moment
More
pics from the gallery
 
 
Site Navigation

Main
   News
   Forums

Games
   Games Database
   Top 100
   Release List
   Support Files

Features
   Reviews
   Previews
   Interviews
   Editorials
   Diaries
   Misc

Download
   Gallery
   Music
   Screenshots
   Videos

Miscellaneous
   Staff Members
   Privacy Statement

FAQ
Members
Usergroups
Sexual Deviant Marraiges
  View previous topic :: View next topic
RPGDot Forums > Absolutely Off Topic

Author Thread
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

I didn't say that. I meant that laws are supposed to be equal for everybody. So if I would laugh it out in court because of this then I would laugh to the same extend as when a man and a woman had the same dispute, strictly because the law is ridiculous, not because of the people in front of me.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:43 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

quote:
Does that exclude people who get married and have no intention whatsoever to get their genes into the next generation? Should that be disallowed? If not then why does it not apply to them but does apply to homosexuals?

I will respond to that, but first I will to point out an important concept.

We take the technology of modern society for granted. Rules concerning basic natural laws must be able to deal with modern societies AND primitive societies, because we can not be certain that our society will not regress one day and force us to rebuild it again. Laws of marriage must be able to work in 1 million B.C. AND 1 million A.D.

In societies that are primitive or too poor to afford birth control, there is no such thing as heterosexuals getting married with no intention to procreate. A decision to have sex is a decision to procreate, there is no difference. So if you have sex with your spouse, without taking any other action, you set in motion a chain of events that will result in new life, unless something is wrong. In the sense of natural law, what you propose is impossible for two healthy people.

So, to answer your question, it does not exclude people who marry with no intention of having children, it should not be disallowed, because unbeknownst to them, they intend to procreate anyway. Homosexual couples should be disallowed because, apparently unbeknownst to them as well, they do NOT intend to procreate. (with each other anyway.)

NOTE: I can not count the people I know, who had no intention of getting pregnant but got pregnant anyway. I also have seen several people on this site and other places mention a homosexual couple having children as though they do not realize that this is impossible.

As far as getting your genes into the next generation. That is the primary goal of all life from viruses to people. Nature does not wait for people to chose to procreate; it forces people to procreate. If a person does not have contact with the opposite sex he undergoes various mental changes that push him or her toward that contact, unless there is something wrong. There may be a person here or there that can resist but, we can not resist it in real, significant numbers.

The following quotes are by Myrthos in reference to my last post before this one
quote:
The same laws apply as to when a hetero couple gets married. She must pay child support. As to who is in advantage, that is left for a judge to decide if needed. Marriage is mariage, there are no different types of marriages.
quote:
I can't judge that as I don't think we have such a law in my country. But as far as I understand laws in my country, they are not supposed to be executed differently depending on the sex of the partners. So if we would have such a law I would suppose the answer to that is yes. The lady is blindfolded for a very good reason after all.


SO,
two women can get married and be forced to pay child support for the children that the other has while in that 'marriage'. I guess the child's REAL FATHER gets off without paying anything.
WHILE,
a woman who lives with a man for 10 years and has 5 children by him, but does not marry him because she continues to believe the 'wait until next year' line, can not be treated as his spouse if he were to die while they still live together.

That lady is blindfolded, but she can hear. Does that sound like justice?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:41 pm
 View user's profile
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Spoiler of All Fun




Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland
   

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
We take the technology of modern society for granted. Rules concerning basic natural laws must be able to deal with modern societies AND primitive societies, because we can not be certain that our society will not regress one day and force us to rebuild it again. Laws of marriage must be able to work in 1 million B.C. AND 1 million A.D.

We make laws to deal with the current situation, not for 100 years in the future, let alone 1 million years. Anybody who thinks that they can invent a law that is still valid in 1 million years is very arrogant. Changes that occur in societies make laws become irrelevant or even more relevant. A law or a rule should not be maintained, just because it exists, but because there still is a need for it in the society. And "Another ruler, another set of rules"

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
In societies that are primitive or too poor to afford birth control, there is no such thing as heterosexuals getting married with no intention to procreate.

Really? How can you be so certain of this? Have you made a study of all historical societies that existed?

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
A decision to have sex is a decision to procreate, there is no difference. So if you have sex with your spouse, without taking any other action, you set in motion a chain of events that will result in new life, unless something is wrong. In the sense of natural law, what you propose is impossible for two healthy people.

In all honesty I can say that in most cases I had sex, there was no intention to procreate. Sex is more then just a way to create children.

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
As far as getting your genes into the next generation. That is the primary goal of all life from viruses to people. Nature does not wait for people to chose to procreate; it forces people to procreate. If a person does not have contact with the opposite sex he undergoes various mental changes that push him or her toward that contact, unless there is something wrong. There may be a person here or there that can resist but, we can not resist it in real, significant numbers.

That I find to be a really frightening set of thoughts.

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
SO,
two women can get married and be forced to pay child support for the children that the other has while in that 'marriage'. I guess the child's REAL FATHER gets off without paying anything.

You are actually saying that a sperm donor has to pay for child support???

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
a woman who lives with a man for 10 years and has 5 children by him, but does not marry him because she continues to believe the 'wait until next year' line, can not be treated as his spouse if he were to die while they still live together.

If you read what I wrote then I did not say that. What I did say is that the lady is blind. She can not see who is in front of her. So the rule applies to all couples coming in front of her. She can not distinguish between the couples. If she should do that, then she is no longer blindfolded.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Post Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:25 pm
 View user's profile
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Most Exalted Highlord




Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
   

quote:
We make laws to deal with the current situation, not for 100 years in the future, let alone 1 million years. Anybody who thinks that they can invent a law that is still valid in 1 million years is very arrogant. Changes that occur in societies make laws become irrelevant or even more relevant. A law or a rule should not be maintained, just because it exists, but because there still is a need for it in the society. And "Another ruler, another set of rules"
There such as things as "natural law" and "right and wrong" and they work together. We do not "invent" these things or "create" them. We "discover" them. They are there all along. The more you work with them, the more prosperous you are. The more you work against them, the more you suffer. Our job is to make legal laws that coincide with nature as much as possible (no society is perfect). If your law coincides perfectly with nature, it will last as long as nature itself, because it is a part of nature. A legal law like "don't murder your fellow citizen" is going to be relevant 1 million years from now, because it is based in the nature of people. A natural law like, "Men and Women are different" is going to be valid as long as men a women really are different (hopefully for more than 1 million years). Proponents of this issue want to ignore this.

quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
In societies that are primitive or too poor to afford birth control, there is no such thing as heterosexuals getting married with no intention to procreate. A decision to have sex is a decision to procreate, there is no difference. So if you have sex with your spouse, without taking any other action, you set in motion a chain of events that will result in new life, unless something is wrong. In the sense of natural law, what you propose is impossible for two healthy people.
Responses by Myrthos
quote:
Really? How can you be so certain of this? Have you made a study of all historical societies that existed?
quote:
In all honesty I can say that in most cases I had sex, there was no intention to procreate. Sex is more then just a way to create children.
You miss my point entirely. A person may think in his mind, "I don't intend to procreate," but if he/she proceeds to do what they know will get them pregnant, they intend to procreate. It is like shooting someone in the head but saying, "I intended to shoot him in the head, but I didn't intend to kill him." Intention to perform the 'cause' action is intention to perform the 'effect' action. Wanting the laws of reality to change so that you can have sex indefinitely but never get pregnant doesn't matter.

Nature does not hope a person grows in a society that can teach him exactly what to do to procreate. A person's emotions will push him toward sex and thus procreation. All of that other stuff that sex is for (the fun, the closeness and other emotional benefits) while enjoyable, are just side effects to motivate people to have sex and protect the young without them having to understand what is going on.

On getting your genes into the next generation.
Viruses get into your body and use your genetic material to make more viruses. That's how they make you sick. When male lions take over a pride, they kill every cub that was already alive when they get there to give all of the attention to their own cubs. Human bodies grow stronger until they peak a grow past our child-bearing years. Then our bodies slowly begin to break down. It may be frightening, but in a biological sense, that is it, the true bottom line, get your genes into the next generation. We just try to enjoy the ride.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrthos
You are actually saying that a sperm donor has to pay for child support???
That is not what saying, I was thinking of a woman married to another woman who actually enjoys sex with a man as well, and gets pregnant. When a man's wife gets pregnant by someone else, he has to pay until he can prove it is not his. In times before blood/DNA tests, he was just stuck unless he ran (running without decisive proof would make him the lowest form of man). According to you, a woman whose wife gets pregnant is actually the child's father, and should be stuck with child support forever if they can not get a DNA test. According to you, it is wrong for the law to treat them differently from a male/female couple.

However, I personally think that if a child is conceived of your blood you have an obligation to pay for it. You can not rightfully choose to be released from it and no one else can rightfully release you from it. I know it happens legally but I don't think it is right.

On the common law situations and Lady Justice
If justice can not distinguish be 10 year male heterosexual roomates and 10-year male/female roomates with children, either both are in common law marriages, or neither are in common law marriages. Is that what you are saying?
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Post Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:52 am
 View user's profile


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:44 am



Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
 
 
 
All original content of this site is copyrighted by RPGWatch. Copying or reproducing of any part of this site is strictly prohibited. Taking anything from this site without authorisation will be considered stealing and we'll be forced to visit you and jump on your legs until you give it back.